Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Green energy powered by bullsh!t
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="egbert" data-source="post: 7794467" data-attributes="member: 9965"><p>don't be silly.</p><p>Burning wood for energy is, as a general principal, gazillions times better than fossil fuels, as it is - in human terms- genuinely carbon neutral</p><p>IE it is made of carbon it captured while growing, and releases it again as it's burnt.</p><p>There is even the argument that the root system is building soil carbon as well. </p><p></p><p>Obviously, that skips over how and where the tree is harvested and carted to the place where it's burnt.... and dragging thousands of tonnes of it through the Atlantic to Drax doesn't stack up quite as well.</p><p>(I'm sure it's only a coincidence that a director of Drax sits -or sat- on the CCC) </p><p></p><p>All fossil fuels are a disaster, in that they were laid down in a world that no longer exists, and over a very long period.</p><p>Offshore wind is stupidly pointlessly expensive.</p><p>On shore turbines might offend the eye of the beholder, but are an obvious way to go.</p><p></p><p>Nuclear (as in fission) is an utter carcrash. The carbon cost of building them is eyewatering - millions of tonnes of concrete. fudging millions*. </p><p>Then there is the chance one will go ping ...and it'll melt the rest of you.</p><p>The cost of generating nuclear is still unknown, because we are STILL paying for the storage of crap from the very first day we sparked one up....as will our grandchildren.</p><p>Fusion has potential, but the tech problems are monstrous.</p><p></p><p>notwithsatnding the manufacture 'costs', solar is a no brainer.</p><p>They should be a simple requirement of every one of those sh1tbox new houses....each roof has its own panels.</p><p></p><p>*fag packet maths puts the current projected cost of the new Hinkley plant, versus the predicted supply it generates, as dearer than paying elon musk to put solar and batteries in every single house Hinkley will supply. EVERY fecking house. </p><p></p><p>Small scale water turbines are likewise a no-brainer. The sticking point is scale of component/system manufacture is too small to make it mass produced.</p><p></p><p>Battery/storage/transmission remain the bigger problems.</p><p></p><p>And, of course, as with everything in life.... corrupt donations twist policy.</p><p>Rational solutions being enacted? There's no hope. none.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="egbert, post: 7794467, member: 9965"] don't be silly. Burning wood for energy is, as a general principal, gazillions times better than fossil fuels, as it is - in human terms- genuinely carbon neutral IE it is made of carbon it captured while growing, and releases it again as it's burnt. There is even the argument that the root system is building soil carbon as well. Obviously, that skips over how and where the tree is harvested and carted to the place where it's burnt.... and dragging thousands of tonnes of it through the Atlantic to Drax doesn't stack up quite as well. (I'm sure it's only a coincidence that a director of Drax sits -or sat- on the CCC) All fossil fuels are a disaster, in that they were laid down in a world that no longer exists, and over a very long period. Offshore wind is stupidly pointlessly expensive. On shore turbines might offend the eye of the beholder, but are an obvious way to go. Nuclear (as in fission) is an utter carcrash. The carbon cost of building them is eyewatering - millions of tonnes of concrete. fudging millions*. Then there is the chance one will go ping ...and it'll melt the rest of you. The cost of generating nuclear is still unknown, because we are STILL paying for the storage of crap from the very first day we sparked one up....as will our grandchildren. Fusion has potential, but the tech problems are monstrous. notwithsatnding the manufacture 'costs', solar is a no brainer. They should be a simple requirement of every one of those sh1tbox new houses....each roof has its own panels. *fag packet maths puts the current projected cost of the new Hinkley plant, versus the predicted supply it generates, as dearer than paying elon musk to put solar and batteries in every single house Hinkley will supply. EVERY fecking house. Small scale water turbines are likewise a no-brainer. The sticking point is scale of component/system manufacture is too small to make it mass produced. Battery/storage/transmission remain the bigger problems. And, of course, as with everything in life.... corrupt donations twist policy. Rational solutions being enacted? There's no hope. none. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Green energy powered by bullsh!t
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top